From owner-freebsd-current Sat Dec 20 11:04:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA05217 for current-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:04:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05199; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:04:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr09.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA24605; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 12:04:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd024586; Sat Dec 20 12:04:06 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA09967; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 12:04:04 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199712201904.MAA09967@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Bruce vandalism again To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 19:04:03 +0000 (GMT) Cc: bde@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <349B1196.167EB0E7@whistle.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Dec 19, 97 04:30:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Bruce. > > I know this has been discussed before, > but I'm not convinced that you are mving with the agreement of > everybody here. > > int > -ether_ioctl(struct ifnet *ifp, int command, caddr_t data) > +ether_ioctl(ifp, command, data) > + struct ifnet *ifp; > + int command; > + caddr_t data; > { > struct ifaddr *ifa = (struct ifaddr *) data; > > I know I am converting every function I add and anything I massively > rewrite to use prototypes. > I know I have a lot of people on my side here. > a commit that does nothing but this vandalism is REALLY ANNOYING! Prototypes will perform their intended function when they are declared in the header file, without needing the function declarations to contain them. Changing the function declarations allows the (dubious) benefit of compiling the stuff under C++. Even then, you need BEGINDECLS/ENDDECLS to ensure that they are C symbols so that linking is still possible because of the idiot compiler writers "decorating" symbols. I would much prefer that the code remain as portable to *C* compilers as it can possibly be, This can be done *without* protoizing the actual function declataions. I, for one, appreciate what Bruce is doing. I own hardware for which gcc is unavailable, and for which I am unwilling to become your friendly neighborhood GCC distributor for a 2 year commitment. Even mormon missionaries are only required 18 months, these days: 2 years is too long. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.